Ted Kolderie of Education/EvolvingJanuary 22, 2016
More thinking, less premature action for
better community problem solving

Overview

Higher quality actions on community problems
are more likely if decision makers avoid short cuts to action and give
more attention to analysis, clarification, and optional solutions,
according to Ted Kolderie.

Thanks for sharing this. Itís an
interesting strategy thatís discussed here. The claim of a 100,000
workers shortage of talent is an annoying exaggeration Ė but the
qualitative description of the workforce shortage issue is good.

Vici Oshiro

Generally agree with overall ideas, but have
plenty of problems with the specifics. Main proposals need more
attention to unintended consequences.

John James

Excellent, thoughtful comments from Ted, as
one would expect.

Picking up on this and my recent email on the new study from the AEI/Brookings
Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity, here's a wild idea for you.

Maybe the Civic Caucus could convene a public study effort, or perhaps a
series of such efforts, that takes off from their recommendations.
Consider inviting CAE and G&J to participate. In other words, challenge
the leading Minnesota policy organizations of right and left to seek
common ground. Consider inviting the Citizens League to convene a study
group, if they still do that sort of thing, or at least do something to
invite their presumably fairly broad membership into the discussion.
Consider asking a foundation or foundations to fund the effort.

I freely admit I have put the cart before the horse here in the sense of
not having reviewed the specifics of the study; e.g., some of it may
apply only at the federal level. But I find that hard to believe. I do
believe that you have access to people far more expert than I on the
challenges dealt with by the report, and I encourage you to take a swing
at doing something.

Tom Spitznagle

Excellent interview on several key
observations. I especially agree with Mr. Kolderie that too many
foundations, non-profits and government agencies focus on treating
symptoms instead of root problems. It is so obvious in some cases that
it must be intentional. Is it because it's too politically risky to talk
about the personal behavior that is problematic as Mitch Pearlstein
suggested in an earlier interview? Regardless of the reason, a great
amount of resources are wasted chasing the symptoms of real problems.
The "system" is perpetuated at the expense of society. How can anybody
feel good about working in an organization like this that claims to be
helping people?

Scott Halstead

The public policy debate at the Capital has
been cutoff by big money and the influence of lobbyists that are
supported by big money. The politicians and their parties have received
boatloads of money to support their election campaigns. Those same deep
pockets then hire lobbyists to carry their policy objectives. Quite
often, the lobbyists just happen to be former legislators who just
happen to have a policy document available and access to the legislators
to carry out their objectives.

The legislators hide behind closed doors in their caucus groups. Much of
the legislation is wrapped into a Omnibus bill that is negotiated in
secret by a few ranking members and then voted on at the last minute
after the legislators have had 15 minutes to review 500 pages. Real,
nonbiased media coverage is nonexistent.

The legislators introduce legislation of interest, take testimony, make
sure they have media coverage, [and] pass it on to another committee,
but it dies in secrecy along with the other 98% of the bills. There
isn't a legislative scorecard for the public to see.

At least at the national level, there are organizations that keep a
scorecard on issues important to them and are published for their
members.

We have a problem. Suggestion: Civic Caucus, select one of your policy
papers and try to go through the legislative process.

Thank you Ted for your public policy insight.

I suggest that the Civic Caucus spend a day at the Capital and work on
steps 1 and 2.

Paul Hauge

Ted is his normal incisive self. Here we
have a very concise review of some of the big issues of the past 50 some
years, many of which [issues] the Citizens League authored or promoted.
Legislators would do well to read what Ted recommends and make use of
his suggestions during their rash decision-making.

Dennis Carlson

Ted, as usual, makes great points on the
effectiveness of public policy development (or

lack of it) and the changes that have occurred
in the media. Having just seen the movie "Spotlight" I really question
if any major newspaper now would have that quality of reporters that the
Boston Globe once had, and then take the time and effort to shed light
on the decades-long issue of priest abuse of children and larger
cover-up by the Catholic church leadership.

Ted's points on education also ring true. There has been a rush to
action (with a profound lack of research and judgment) in some states
focusing on urban school districts. The New York Times yesterday wrote
about the state takeover of some urban school districts around the US.
In some cases the takeover was done in secret without any public policy
discussion at all. I wonder, if some politicians have their way, will
that happen to the Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts? The NY
Times writer's analysis of those State takeovers was that those
districts (and students) are now in worse shape than they were before.

The rush to take political action without due process and public
engagement seems to me to be getting worse. The majority of Presidential
candidates seems to ignore pollution, climate change, the high cost of
medical care, and less complex issues like gun control, and seem to
focus only on budget cutting, eliminating big government, name calling,
and other personal attacks. The solution by some is to build up our
military, bomb the enemies, and arm everyone, including teachers. This
is the quality of the debate on choosing our next President? What if one
of them actually wins? Heaven help us.

To listen to a thoughtful, well-read, educated person like Ted is just
such a contrast to our current state of public discourse. We are getting
lost in the quick, sound bite environment where Twitter and YouTube seem
to dominate the airwaves. If that is where voters get their information
and where public opinion is ultimately developed - our American
democracy is in some serious trouble. We should have more TED talks.

Many of our decisions are being made by "quick-fix politicians" rather
than the informed, educated, researched-based experts in the field. How
can we get those two entities together as these important issues are
dealt with and then how can we get quality reporters to get those
proposals in front of the voting public? Thanks to the Civic Caucus for
having this discussion and trying to make a difference in the world.

Robert J. Brown

First I have to say I prefer your previous
method of replying, when you gave specific topics on which one could
make quick comments, which was easier to do without writing a
dissertation. Now, with a lengthy and thoughtful discussion such as this
one by Ted Kolderie it is too hard for my old brain to develop a
detailed and useful response.

Now just a few unorganized comments on Ted's discussion:

1. The fact is that the extremists have taken
over many of the caucuses in both political parties make it more
difficult to resolve policy issues.

2. The schools are not doing a very good job of preparing students to
understand history and the nature of current policy issues and how to
study them

3. Too many people are getting their ideas of
policy issues from narrowly focused media which allows many to make up
their minds without even attempting to see more that one side of an
issue. The so-called mainstream media are not much help since they have
fewer reporters, rarely do in-depth stories that would help people
understand issues, and the editorial pages have very little discussion
of local issues since they predominantly run columns by nationally
syndicated columnists.

4. In many cases it appears that foundations
seem to focus on the topic of the day rather than look for long-term
goals and projects.

5. I couldn't agree more with Ted on the fact
the media emphasis is on winning and losing rather than the substance of
the policy issues. Even worse, the media focus on personalities (noisy
people like the Donald) so that many responsible, competent candidates
who can speak on substantive issues never get a chance to be heard.

The Civic Caucusis a non-partisan,
tax-exempt educational organization. The Interview Group
includes persons of varying political persuasions,
reflecting years of leadership in politics and
business. Click here to see a short personal background of each.